Article 19 guarantees citizens six freedoms, including speech, assembly, movement, and profession. However, these rights are not absolute and can be limited through reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, security, morality, and sovereignty. For example, freedom of speech cannot be used to spread hate or incite violence. Courts ensure that restrictions are justified and not excessive, balancing individual liberty with public interest.

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental freedoms to citizens, including the freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and the right to practice any profession. However, these rights are not absolute. The Constitution permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense, and general public interest.
The term "reasonable" is subjective and has often been interpreted differently by courts. The judiciary plays a crucial role in examining whether the restrictions are just and not arbitrary. In landmark cases like Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has protected individual freedoms by striking down laws that imposed vague or excessive restrictions. However, in matters concerning national security, public safety, or communal harmony, the courts have upheld restrictions to protect the greater public interest.
In conclusion, Article 19 reflects a balance between individual liberty and societal needs. While it empowers citizens with essential freedoms, the provision for reasonable restrictions ensures that these rights are exercised with responsibility and do not harm the interests of the nation.